Why Qualia may be Unobservable but are not Irreducable

[Dancing David]

Many times on this forum , it has been debated that qualia (perceptual experiences) are inherently irreducable, that they are somehow beyond the ability of an organic machine to create or assimilate.

I do not hold that belief, because i am a scientific materialist, the method can only answer questions about observable events and therefore some evnts or ideas are beyond it's grasp.

I feel that there is a reason that the brain can recognise and store qualia without the need for some emrgent phenomena.

First the nomenclature, there are sensations which are the raw interaction of the receptors and the non provable external world.;)

Then there are the perception, which is the brain representation to itself of the sensations. It is perception that is generaly attributed to qualia, ie the 'redness' of red.

I posit and hope to explore the ramifications of the fact that qualia are learned by the brain. I feel a lot of the philosophical debate runs around talking about 'qualities' without even considering the framework that the qualities exist in. It is not as though there is a soul that looks out the eye and says'Oh look my blood is red."

Some assumptions, the brain always acts in a way to sort, categorise and create associations, it also has many filters to clean out noise in the system.

So to start, what does a baby see, under the current biological model, not much. the brain must develop and learn to categorise the visual inputs from the eye's receptors. The brain appears to be designed by biology to percieve color from the input from the receptors in the eye. the brain learns to see qualia only because it is exposed to qualia.

Question One: at what age does the meta cognitive process begin or at what age would an idealist/dualist say that consiousness emerges from the biological process. Or do idealist truely believe that babies percieve color.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Question One: at what age does the meta cognitive process begin or at what age would an idealist/dualist say that consiousness emerges from the biological process. Or do idealist truely believe that babies percieve color.

Just a few questions of developemental psychology, not too difficult...

The "meta cognitive process" begins before the baby is born. The brain usually completes developement and all the neural "connections" (just avoiding extraneous use of biological terms...) at around 6 years of age.

The age at which consciousness arises is unknown. We know memories can be begin at 3 years of age, therefore we wouldnt be able to recall if we were conscious before that time.

There is debate to whether babies can see color. Although I'm sure it wouldnt be hard to perform an experiment (2 bottles, one green, one red, fill the green up with milk, the red with something else, see which cup is grabbed for more often... that is one example). I cant give an estimate to when color cognition and recognition occurs, but I think as soon as the babie opens it first opens its eyes.

[lifegazer]

If I was just to state that this is ********, and that you are a complete nerd, and crack a few jokes for my (imaginary) idealist-friends, how would you feel? Just curious.

[hammegk]

What is a quale?

For example, we can all agree "that object" is red because that is a learned behavior. What neither of us will ever know about the other is what "color" we each visualize with our eyes closed as "red". And do you think my brain pattern imposed on your brain will provide you direct access to my (internal) color I call "red"?

That's the irreducible -- as well as in this case unobservable -- problem imo.

DD
Question One: at what age does the meta cognitive process begin or at what age would an idealist/dualist say that consiousness emerges from the biological process.

This idealist would posit that what we perceive as a biological construct (current most complicated biology being the human brain) "allows" inherent & underlying consciousness its' greatest range of expression. ;)

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Hammegk,

For example, we can all agree "that object" is red because that is a learned behavior. What neither of us will ever know about the other is what "color" we each visualize with our eyes closed as "red". And do you think my brain pattern imposed on your brain will provide you direct access to my (internal) color I call "red"?

That's the irreducible -- as well as in this case unobservable -- problem imo.

That's not irreducibility, that is just incompatibility. I can't run DEC Alpha machine code on a Pentium 4 either. Same thing.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat

That's not irreducibility, that is just incompatibility. I can't run DEC Alpha machine code on a Pentium 4 either. Same thing.

Phooey, they're both just using 0s & 1s. ;) If anybody could do it it would probably be you. :) I stand corrected though about switching brain coding among brains.

However, any thoughts on your "internal red" vs my "internal red"? An irreducible quale?

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer
If I was just to state that this is ********, and that you are a complete nerd, and crack a few jokes for my (imaginary) idealist-friends, how would you feel? Just curious.

Probably about the same, i have been told that materialism is incoherent, idiotic, irrational and beyong belief.

I already apologised lifegrazer, go feed your ego at the teat of your omnipresent god.

[SFB]

Originally posted by hammegk
What is a quale?

For example, we can all agree "that object" is red because that is a learned behavior. What neither of us will ever know about the other is what "color" we each visualize with our eyes closed as "red". And do you think my brain pattern imposed on your brain will provide you direct access to my (internal) color I call "red"?

That's the irreducible -- as well as in this case unobservable -- problem imo.



This idealist would posit that what we perceive as a biological construct (current most complicated biology being the human brain) "allows" inherent & underlying consciousness its' greatest range of expression. ;)


hammegk:

For each and every instance of the word "brain," in the original post, put the word "normal" just before it!

I realize this may sound simplistic; but hey, it's you, and others, who try to make these concepts more complicated than they need to be; when they do not deserve such complexity.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Yahweh


Just a few questions of developemental psychology, not too difficult...

The "meta cognitive process" begins before the baby is born. The brain usually completes developement and all the neural "connections" (just avoiding extraneous use of biological terms...) at around 6 years of age.

The age at which consciousness arises is unknown. We know memories can be begin at 3 years of age, therefore we wouldnt be able to recall if we were conscious before that time.

There is debate to whether babies can see color. Although I'm sure it wouldnt be hard to perform an experiment (2 bottles, one green, one red, fill the green up with milk, the red with something else, see which cup is grabbed for more often... that is one example). I cant give an estimate to when color cognition and recognition occurs, but I think as soon as the babie opens it first opens its eyes.

Actualy Yahweh the babies don't learn to see color for a while and it also requires exposure to the colors for the infant to learn to percieve the colors.

Point One of the POV: Qualia are learned through exposure.

And for your information brain developement continues into late puberty, and dendrite and axons may continue to grow after that.

The point of the meta cognitive question is a deliberate bait: some would posit that for us to have these qualitative impressions there must be something beyond the brain that supplies the qualities. i am trying to refute this by this thread, probably not to anyones satisfaction.

You are also correct that a babies perceptions begin in the womb, especialy sound but some light, I believe.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Dancing David


Probably about the same, i have been told that materialism is incoherent, idiotic, irrational and beyong belief.

I already apologised lifegrazer, go feed your ego at the teat of your omnipresent god.
I was being sincere. I never even did the things I suggested I could do. I just wanted you to see how I constantly feel in this forum. Not for sympathy... just for respect, I guess.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by hammegk
What is a quale?

For example, we can all agree "that object" is red because that is a learned behavior. What neither of us will ever know about the other is what "color" we each visualize with our eyes closed as "red". And do you think my brain pattern imposed on your brain will provide you direct access to my (internal) color I call "red"?

I am in total agreement hammegk, as i have stated in the thread on primary and secondary, the internal processes that lead to perception are totaly individual. I am using unobservable for that(just for this thread) because that is the part of your experience that I can not observe. I thought that irreducable meant that we could not reduce it to a purely physical process.(definition for this thread)


That's the irreducible -- as well as in this case unobservable -- problem imo.

I am in total agreement, if you would, do you think that perceptions ie qualia are identical to brain processes?


This idealist would posit that what we perceive as a biological construct (current most complicated biology being the human brain) "allows" inherent & underlying consciousness its' greatest range of expression. ;)

Thank you for posting hamme, I thought this would be another materialist discussion solely.

I can understand that, if you say that the human, or a porpise or elephant brain allows for a greater range of experience, then the underlying mind would have greater expression.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by hammegk


Phooey, they're both just using 0s & 1s. ;) If anybody could do it it would probably be you. :) I stand corrected though about switching brain coding among brains.

However, any thoughts on your "internal red" vs my "internal red"? An irreducible quale?

I am split on this one, I understand Stimpy's argument to be that there is an underlying pattern that each brain uses to encode the qualia, and therefore they are capable of translation. But I also agree with you hamme, in that at this point it is not doable.

And then there was the discussion I tried to start about the cross wired brain, where the colors would be reversed, red for green, yellow for blue. That person would live in a world with yellow skies and a blue sun, as well as red leaves turning green in the fall.
At this point I don't think that we could determine that they were cross wired, so unobservable.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I was being sincere. I never even did the things I suggested I could do. I just wanted you to see how I constantly feel in this forum. Not for sympathy... just for respect, I guess.

You have my respect dear one, you have to earn my understanding.

I suggest that you debate Ian and the immaterialists a while, ian is somewhat less insulting than he used to be, and franko is just corny.

You don't get any better treatment for being a materialist around here, this is a forum dedicated to critical thought. Why do you think I have that quote from EvilYeti in my sig line, that is part of the forum as well.

If you can learn to present your ideas coherently then this is a very good forum for checking out the flaws, but as far as sympathy. Look up the pagan magic thread....

can you imagine how hard it is being an atheist in our religously preoccupied society?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

David said:I am split on this one, I understand Stimpy's argument to be that there is an underlying pattern that each brain uses to encode the qualia, and therefore they are capable of translation. But I also agree with you hamme, in that at this point it is not doable.
It's not so much that there is a pattern or coding for red in my brain, but that red is represented throughout a jillion weighted neurons. It seems like it would be stunningly difficult even to figure out which neurons are participating in redness in my brain, let alone figure out redness is represented. Nonetheless, redness is in there somehow.

~~ Paul

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
David said:
It's not so much that there is a pattern or coding for red in my brain, but that red is represented throughout a jillion weighted neurons. It seems like it would be stunningly difficult even to figure out which neurons are participating in redness in my brain, let alone figure out redness is represented. Nonetheless, redness is in there somehow.

~~ Paul

Eloquently stated, I am stating that each brain would weigh in different areas, but they converge in that they are responding to the same photochemical in the recptor.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by hammegk
However, any thoughts on your "internal red" vs my "internal red"? An irreducible quale?

Yes, I do happen to have a few thoughts...

I think your are overliteralizing qualia, qualia is unobservable because it is a concept (kinda the same reason "evil" is unobservable). "Redness" does not exist objectively.

As far as irreducible qualia, I could vouch to say it doesnt take much to reproduce qualia. Using Dancing David's defintion of qualia (perceptual experiences), I could take my Digital Camera, aim it at something, take a picture. On my computer appears a picture of the same thing I saw, the colors would only be limited hardware and software.

Take a microphone, record your voice, play it on your computer. Turn on your TV, the sound quality is much better.

Technology can even replicate qualia that humans dont possess, for instance they can replicate echolocation (metal detectors for example).

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
David said:
It's not so much that there is a pattern or coding for red in my brain, but that red is represented throughout a jillion weighted neurons. It seems like it would be stunningly difficult even to figure out which neurons are participating in redness in my brain, let alone figure out redness is represented. Nonetheless, redness is in there somehow.

~~ Paul

Well, think for a minute about what causes qualia. Jillions of neurons?

Its not a mystery that hallucinogenic drugs alter perception, I think its reasonable to say qualia can and are affected (if not reduceable) to chemical "stuff".

Personally, I would think the question of "Is the 'red' I see the same as the 'red' you see" is at least one example of abusing Philosophy. :D

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Yes, I would say that jillions of neurons cause qualia, at least as far as qualia is even a coherent concept. Is that what you're saying, Yahweh?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Yes, I would say that jillions of neurons cause qualia, at least as far as qualia is even a coherent concept. Is that what you're saying, Yahweh?
(Methinks this be bait on a hook :D...)

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying.